The split between religion and science does not exist

I believe what we do with science is to understand the mechanisms of God.

I believe what we do in philosophy is to understand their patterning, shape and form, and to predict the combined consequences of many causal relationships as a single, functioning entity.

I believe religion is a subset of philosophy.

Evolution is real; it is the hand of God.

God is not a guiding personality, but a groundwork of logic and an impetus toward its refinement.

We will not ever fully understand God.

Quote from: Ildjicide

I also like this concept of God - the ultimate reality, the most basic form of understanding

If you are defining God as ultimate reality, then I agree with what Conservationist has said. But why use a loaded term like God? Why not just use the word reality? It seems you're inviting a dualistic perversion by redefining an old concept in an attempt towards unity.

Maybe the idea of god or entity should be separated from religion, since religion is created by humans to convey ideas that aren't fully understood. Long ago, religion could explain the why's, but that's no longer true.I consider the term of god as a "glue" that maintains everything in its place in an intelligent way. The watchmaker analogy makes a lot of sense to me.

Which in turn is based on metaphysical experience based on a physical universe.

And it goes beyond enjoyment and communication to bind communities and inspire individuals.

Why on earth would you quote Freud of all atheists?

When have you ever experienced God?

I'm not trying to make a point as an atheist, hell, I'm not even an atheist. But do you really think that a concept of God is anything more than a cop out because an individual can't suffer their own anxieties about their own lack of direction and purpose in the Universe?

Rampant atheism is ridiculous. Reaching towards that which is greater than the individual ("Tribe", "Nature", "God") is fulfilling.

Reality itself fulfills all requirements of Godhood - it is all-pervasive, all-knowing, all-powerful, the Creator and Destroyer of all things, and the designer and deliverer of the patterns and paths of existence.

No it's not. There's no reason why you would ever need to be a slave to anyone other than yourself. These same ideas are the similar to those espoused by the Nazis which coerced millions of idiotic sheep into committing the holocaust, going to war and dying pointlessly for imperial gains. The whole idea of owing anyone anything from birth, I suspect, is rooted in the concept of original sin. You owe no one anything, ever. You came into this world completely guiltless and the only obligation you will ever have is to yourself.

I'm not a Judeo-Christian, thus your arguments are invalid. Truly, the statements that you've made in that post there are evidence to support the theory that the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are entirely ignorant on the subject of religion.

Which in turn is based on metaphysical experience based on a physical universe.

And it goes beyond enjoyment and communication to bind communities and inspire individuals.

Why on earth would you quote Freud of all atheists?

When have you ever experienced God?

I'm not trying to make a point as an atheist, hell, I'm not even an atheist. But do you really think that a concept of God is anything more than a cop out because an individual can't suffer their own anxieties about their own lack of direction and purpose in the Universe?

You seem to have confused what we at ANUS refer to as "God" with what William Blake hilariously referred to as the "Nobodaddy". I think I can help to quill your perplexity.

The traditional Judeo-Christian conception of "God" is anthropomorphic and completely transcendent, while the Anusian version is simultaneously transcendent and immanent, and is totally indifferent to the actions of human beings. Jehovah, on the other hand, created the universe as a sort of container for human beings, and supervises his progeny twenty four seven, much as Big Brother does.

For an introduction to the Anusian formulation of divinity, check out the Upanishads and any of William Blake's works.

The traditional Judeo-Christian conception of "God" is anthropomorphic and completely transcendent, while the Anusian version is simultaneously transcendent and immanent, and is totally indifferent to the actions of human beings.

"Holy fuck! Who is this guy? He gets it."

ANUSian "God" is conflatable to Blake's "godhead," also referenced in the Bhagavad-Gita. God is the animating force underlying all reality.

The Judeo-Christian God as seen in most public propaganda is a dualistic God; the only other gods we see are material, including atheism and some Judaic sects.

The ANUSian "God" is a transcendental idealist creation, an emergent pattern which has no existence yet exists in everything.

N.B.: bong hits recommended with this post so you can find God in your toe.

The ANUSian "God" is a transcendental idealist creation, an emergent pattern which has no existence yet exists in everything.

You seem to be using two distinct notions of God. One is that God is ultimate reality, and the other that God is merely a motivational concept, "existing" only within people's minds. Are you implying that ultimate reality is purely conceptual, or am I missing something?

I also am confused. How can this so called "God" be a notion of causality and dictator of actions in the Universe while at the same time encourages free will towards a self defined ideal. Does this supposedly neutral pattern of existence have some grandiose plan in store especially for you?'

Edit: Perhaps I am confusing Cargests definition with Conservationists. This is why I argued earlier that "The Universe" is interchangeable with "God", the Universe lacks all the unnecessary connotations while being founded on an organic worldview.

My underlying problem still remains this: Why do we need this extra conceptual entity? Does it satisfy some neurotic fear of unknowing or a subconscious desire for slavery?

I tried reading this but I can't follow along because of my stupidity. You are all very intelligent.

There's not all that much to the thread other than a failure to apply Occam's razor: Instead of going for the simplest explanation, we've added a God to the equation to explain the essence of the Universe. Similarly, I'm going to propose that pixie dust gives my toaster the motivation to pop, lunar beams cause my food to heat in the microwave and 8 feet long invisible tarantulas caused my parents to fornicate.

The proposition that "We will never understand God" is based on delusional ideas of dualism and a magical ability to foresee into a potentially infinite future.

Pantheism is nothing but post-Christianity spirituality for hipsters and neurotics.

God will never be proved/disproved scientifically, because surely you'd have to be transcendent to do so; I think this plays to Godel's incompleteness theorems, or just a simple Catch 22. Somethings have an intrinsic value to the soul which I can't see being measured scientifically; you can measure the activity and the particles in the brain, but you can't measure the thoughts and the feelings that cause them or are caused by them.

God will never be proved/disproved scientifically, because surely you'd have to be transcendent to do so.

Which is why this dispute will never be resolved. I'm glad Blake was brought up, as it seems he came as close as you can get to transcendence: "If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, 'till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern."

We had a 14 page thread last summer (Religion in Modern America) were all your concerns are addressed. Most of it consisted of a couple people pointing out that an institution resembling religion is important because it motivates people and another couple repeatedly telling stories like yours above thinking they were performing a reduction to absurdity when really they just didn't understand the topic of conversation.

(cue: "No I do understand and it's bullshit I tell you!!! Bullshit!!!")....groan.

They made the exact same arguments so you're not setting anyone straight, just so you know. If you mention burden of proof or positivism I'm gonna snap.

See, this story is useless not because it's not true but because it doesn't help anyone understand anything. You made it up to sound implausible and stupid not to motivate good behavior as deemed by a cultural standard.

There are different strata of humanity and each one needs to have the world explained to them in a different way. The truly enlightened, who do not actually exist, would not need symbols or allegories to help them understand the world, they need no God Concept. On the other end, there are the dumbest and/or least philoposhical who need rules like "Thou shalt not lie" explained to them by saying "You'll go to hell if you lie."

Second, why apply a literal criticism to a metaphorical story? Do you do that every time you read fiction? Do you think Tolkien is stupid because there is no such thing as magic or dragons in reality? Then why do it to the bible?

To anticipate a question: Why are people told the bible contains literal truth? because that's how you get them to heed the wisdom contained in it.

These same ideas are the similar to those espoused by the Nazis which coerced millions of idiotic sheep into committing the holocaust, going to war and dying pointlessly for imperial gains.

But these ideas did motivate them. They're apparently the only way to motivate the masses. And if they can motivate them for purposes we deem bad, then they can be used for purposes we deem good. What do you want to do, not have a society? The people need direction and it needs to be delivered in a way effective for the audience.

4. Religion as an abstracted concept (that is a group devotion to a set of beliefs) is just part of human nature and if we don't have an cultural institution to fill that need, what will?

5. You tell from the length of this post that the issue is more complicated than just applying Occam's razor to each myth, isolated from context. And that might be where you start to go wrong (I think, anyways) is that you remove the concept of religion from the context of humanity and criticize it from what it is in itself. Can anything we make stand up to that?